Was this a concerted effort to send a message to other owners of dangerously blighted buildings? Was it merely the product of coincidences in the course of normal police work? Or something more nefarious, as two black leaders alleged in strident speeches delivered at a community forum Sunday?

PennLive posted an editorial early Monday evening after a frustrating day of trying to get Papenfuse or his spokeswoman to provide any detailed response to the black leaders’ criticisms. At that point, Papenfuse's spokeswoman Joyce Davis would say only that the arrest was "standard police response." The editorial also appeared in Tuesday’s print edition of the Patriot-News.

At 7:18 p.m. Monday evening, Davis issued a press release that did not address Sullivan’s arrest. The only passage in the statement that in any way alluded to the dispute was this:

“City Solicitor Neil Grover said it would be inappropriate for City officials to attempt to influence the outcome of these matters through further public comment, as the issues now rest squarely before the courts.”

Left unexplained is how talking about the circumstances of Sullivan’s arrest could be construed as an “attempt to influence the outcome of these matters” in court. Law enforcement officials routinely talk about the circumstances of an arrest – when they feel it is advantageous to do so.

Still hanging are questions about whether the mayor or Police Chief Thomas Carter knew about plans to arrest Sullivan and issued any instructions on how it should be handled. The mayor’s silence is providing fuel to critics who allege (without a shred of evidence so far) that the arrest was political retribution against a prominent African-American community leader.

As Monday’s PennLive editorial noted, “As long as Papenfuse fails to explain what happened that night to Rev. Sullivan — especially what the mayor knew about it at the time — that anger and speculation [triggered by the way Sullivan was treated] will continue to boil.”